30 April 2018 12:51 PM

Waiting for the OPCW: How to Read the Next Report on Alleged Chemical Weapons Atrocities

After a few days away from the office, I’d like to return briefly to what is still the most important subject in the world – war versus peace. For , be in no doubt, there is a growing danger of an actual war between Israel and Iran, between Saudi Arabia and Iran and, as a result, between the ‘West’ and Iran. Such a war could spread quite easily to the European continent thanks to Russia’s close relations with Iran and with Iran’s ally, Syria. Indeed, Israel is already attacking Iranian regular armed forces stationed in Syria (when I say ‘regular’, I assume these forces are part of the Revolutionary Guards, the Ayatollahs’ ultra-loyal special army, which answers direct to the Supreme leader). A further unpredictable quantity in this mess is the attitude of Turkey, a country rapidly descending into severe despotism, led by an erratic Islamist President whose foreign policy veers wildly from one direction to another, but whose country’s membership of NATO means he cannot easily be slapped down or disowned by Washington DC.

In the coming period of grave danger in the Near East, much may depend on the attitudes of media and politicians towards evidence of atrocities. This is because in the post-1945, post UN Charter world, nations cannot simply start wars. They need a reason and/or pretetxt. A noble humanitarian pretext is the best way of ensuring public and UN support for wars of choice which would otherwise break international law.

It will also depend, of course on our views about what the best response to proven atrocities is, if they are proven and if their culprits can be reliably identified. I have been asked mre than once in recent weeks if, should the Assad state be proven guilty of war crimes, I would support the missile attacks made on Syria. And I have answered that these attacks are not morally logical, if our true concern is to prevent the murder of civilians in war.

What do we know, and what can we know, about poison gas attacks in conflict zones? While we wait for the outcome of the inspection of the Douma site, near Damascus, by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), I’d just like to draw attention to a statement made in 2013 by this important body.

I’m doing this partly because I wonder exactly how it applies to the much-discussed Khan Sheikhoun report, in which the now defunct Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) of the United Nations concluded that an OPCW report confirmed the guilt of the Assad state.

It seems to me to be unwarranted by any standards, and I am not especially surprised that Russia soon afterwards moved to withdraw support from the JIM, and seek instead to have such judgements made by the UN Security Council itself. Because, as I explain, there are a number of major acknowledged, unexplained flaws in the report which would cause any sceptical person to wonder about it. But that is not in fact the most important caveat. This is that the OPCW never went to Khan Sheikhoun and so had no first-hand evidence of events there and cannot have had a reliable chain of custody between the site and the laboratory where the samples were tested. Such a chain of custody is essential for a reliable report.

So how does the JIM report of last autumn, using this flawed OPCW document as the basis for a finding of ‘guilty', square with the April 26 2013 statement made by OPCW statesman Michael Luhan, reported in the Reuters story, a story which begins by saying ‘Assertions of chemical weapon use in Syria by Western and Israeli officials citing photos, sporadic shelling and traces of toxins do not meet the standard of proof needed for a U.N. team of experts waiting to gather their own field evidence.That type of evidence, needed to show definitively if banned chemicals were found, has not been presented by governments and intelligence agencies accusing Syria of using chemical weapons against insurgents.’

Here is the key part (emphases mine):

‘Weapons inspectors will only determine whether banned chemical agents were used in the two-year-old conflict if they are able to access sites and take soil, blood, urine or tissue samples and examine them in certified laboratories, according to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which works with the United Nations on inspections.

“This is the only basis on which the OPCW would provide a formal assessment of whether chemical weapons have been used,” said Michael Luhan, a spokesman for the Hague-based OPCW.’

Later in the story the reporter explains: ‘Even if samples were made available to the OPCW by those making the assertions, the organisation could not use them. Then he quotes Mr Luhan directly (my emphases)

“The OPCW would never get involved in testing samples that our own inspectors don’t gather in the field because we need to maintain chain of custody of samples from the field to the lab to ensure their integrity,” said Luhan.

Well, how does that square with the eventual treatment of the Khan Sheikhoun report? I will be grateful for explanations, as never is a pretty unambiguous word.

Interestingly, these caveats about what was acceptable were issued as part of a criticism of the Syrian state for not allowing the OPCW access. Two weeks ago Britain and the US both criticised the Syrian government for allegedly denying the OPCW access to Douma (I have yet to see an authoritative independent account of what actually happened there, and would be grateful for one).

I don’t recall these governments complaining to the Nusra Front (over which I believe they have some influence) about its failure to make free access to Khan Sheikhoun available. But maybe they did, and I missed it.

Anyway, I don’t want to anticipate the results of the OPCW visit to Douma. Of course the delay to their arrival, however caused, and the departure to the Islamist-controlled region of Idlib of many of those who had been there at the time of the alleged atrocity, must make their job very difficult. These problems may conceivably be raised by one side or the other if the subsequent report is by any chance not exactly what they wanted to hear. In any case, I urge careful reading of the report itself, especially by MPs, Congressmen, media commentators, reporters and other persons whose attitude towards this inquiry may influence the way it is received, and what happens afterwards.

IMPORTANT NOTE TO ALL READERS FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF MISUNDERSTANDING: IF IT APPEARS TO YOU THAT ANY PART OF THIS ARTICLE ACCUSES THE USA, BRITAIN OR FRANCE OF SEEKING TO FABRICATE GAS ATTACKS AS A PRETEXT FOR WAR, YOU ARE MISTAKEN. NO SUCH SUGGESTION IS MADE OR INTENDED.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I have tried to translate an interview with former OPCW inspector Åke Sellström (Dagens Nyheter, 8 April 2018) from Swedish to English (with help of Google translation and some dictionaries. I apologise beforehand for my poor English):

'Expert: Difficult to assess the data

The data on CWs in Ghouta are difficult to assess, according to former UN inspector Åke Sellström.

"Until proven, I remain being skeptical," he says, and he expects the case to be investigated.

Åke Sellström, former director of UN weapons inspectors in Syria, says it is difficult to assess the data on the new CW attack. What contradicts the regime is behind the attack, in that case, is it would be unnecessary to make themselves a target for international protests.

"While getting strong criticism from the international community, Assad and Russians bombard Ghouta bit by bit, that they would add the opportunity to be criticized for using chemicals - it feels strange. They do not need it, when their tactics have already been succeeded, says Sellström.

The attack could come from Assad's regime, but there might be other explanations as well. Toxic substances can be dispersed in many ways, for example through ground explosions or smoke.

- There are many poisonous substances in circulation during the battle.

The US Department of Foreign Affairs has announced that they are following the situation. Sellström says the attack allows more powerful protests from the world.

- The international community will listen, if they claim that prohibited substances are used. I think this will be investigated in different ways. Either internally within the United States, Britain and France, or ask for the international community.

If the UN were to investigate the attack, it is not enough to see videos or hear testimonies, says Sellström.

"We would have to meet people and doctors personally and, in particular, need to take samples from the site and poisoned persons. Now it is said that this could be chlorine, and it is harder to take samples because it evaporates quickly and does not leave any clear markers in the body.

Syria's capacity for CW is low today, says Sellström, but it does not need much to carry out an attack.

"It is possible that they can trip over or produce something. This can be investigated further. It's hard to get into the country, but witnesses can get out."'

Srewth! Was just over at your twitter feed and amazed at the attacks from the moral pygmies.

But don't worry, you're in good company. Both old school journos (Fisk, Seymour Hirsh and Pilger - see his latest interview on RT's Going Underground) and new school (Vanessa Beeley, Eva Bartlett and Pearson Sharp).

“You Know You’re Over the Target When You’re Catching Flak”.

And, as my mate Paul Joseph Watson says (OK he's InfoWars, so what): "Conservatism is the NEW Counter-Culture". (Can't post the link here, you can find it on You Tube)

I have to say that I have lost confidence in the OPCW. They are clearly subject to political pressure and I believe that the wording of their report reflects this.

I feel very disturbed by the attitudes of most of the mainstream media. At the moment only a tiny handful of journalists seem capable of understanding the difference between what is actually known and what might be believed.

I doubt - for example - that journalists such as George Monbiot (who I once respected, but no longer) can be persuaded to accept that it is reasonable to doubt. It is too much for his ego.

I read that the UK government is keen to restart the Cold War. I for one won't be succumbing to the paranoia and fear over Russia that led to much of my childhood being subject to intense fear and dread. No, not this time. I am confident that it is lies. Propaganda. Presumably they are keen for a scapegoat if Brexit is a failure. These fanatics must keep the Tory party alive after all.

A few years ago I decided (for no good reason) to try to learn the Russian language. I still cannot really speak it, but I have learned a great deal about it. I was once keen to visit the country and perhaps make some Russian friends. I now feel that I might be accused by this wretched government of being some sort of traitor for daring to shake hands with the "enemy".

They - the tories - are the enemy. My contempt for this disgusting regime in Westminster is beyond words.

While we discuss unlawful killings far away in Syria, what about the Alfie Evans case?

The parents assumed full legal and financial responsibility, the Bambino Gesu hospital offered free treatment, the Italian govt offered Alfie Italian citizenship to clear hurdles, and I understand the Italian air force provided a plane with life support to transfer him ...

And the British govt says sorry, he has to die?

Posted by: Colin | 01 May 2018 at 02:07 PM

Firstly the parents were being manipulated by a shadowy right wing christian organisation with a history of involving themselves in similar cases. They even duped the Alder Hay staff into believing that they were relatives or family friends. They were using them for their own dubious ends.
Secondly it had nothing to do with the Govt. The medical profession were unanimous in agreeing the poor child was beyond any help and moving him could have caused trauma. The courts agreed right up to the Supreme Court.
Don't get sucked into the conspiracy theories of these charletons.

To L Porter | 02 May 2018 at 10:55 AM. The reactors on ships are indeed much smaller than Chernobyl, but only a portion of Chernobyl's content got out, whereas in a "Hood" type scenario the whole lot would get out.

There is also the problem of a ship sinking with a badly damaged reactor. Once it went to the bottom there would be no chance of preventing the sea getting into the reactor and washing out its contents. Perhaps Fukujima is a better parallel than Chernobyl.

Has Peter had any sort of approach from the BBC, This Week or even Andrew Neil himself since the 19th April edition of This Week? An apology perhaps. Even if grudging.

In my world i like to think Mr Neil would have been encouraged by Peter's insistence that he was being misrepresented during the programme to go back and re-read the article for the nth time and then had the integrity to apologise. Better still invite PH back onto the programme for a follow up chat.

Of-course my world is located the other side of that mirror and / or down the rabbit hole Alice found ...

I believe the OPCW repeatedly denied the claims by western media that the Syrian government and/or russian military was barring them access to the site of claimed gas attack. The OPCW said they were denied access by the UN security team who had not given them clearance because of safety concerns.

The missile strikes were delivered on the basis that any international chemical weapons inspection would never state that the Syrian government was not involved. And I doubt anything will convince the West of its non-involvement. The Western narrative has to endure because of the massive investment in its credibility.

How can we believe that there is not a war going on between the soverign state of Syria and internal and external militias and their Western advisers? In spite of the latter land has been recaptured and it would be perfectly natural for those retreating to fabricate a chemical attack as a parting gift. One has to be naive to think agents of the West would never countenace this.

The gas attacks were used as an excuse for missile strikes, so here is some thought-provoking data about those missiles. (The software used for this blog des not appear to be able to handle tables, so perforce I have presented the information in a different way.)

The Tomahawk was the missile used by America, the Storm Shadow by Britain, and I have included the corresponding figures for a German missile, the Fieseler Fi-103:

Note that the German missile has a much shorter range than the British and American ones, but a much bigger warhead. Obviously either may be increased at the expense of the other.

More interesting is the cost difference. The Fieseler Fi-103 was much better known by its aliases, V-1, Doodlebug and BuzzBomb. The price in 1943 was equivalent to $600 and I have multiplied by 100 to allow for inflation - fairly generous I think.

Why the difference? That is a question you might like to ask HMRC next time they demand "their" slice of your income.

BTW, the answer to that question is NOT the cost of the guidance system. The Storm Shadow and Tomahawk use GPS ["SatNav"] and you can buy one for your car for under $100. The V1 used DR, and my guess is that it cost a good deal more to manufacture than $100 in 2018 money.

L Porter | 01 May 2018 at 11:43 AM writes "ABC weapons are too indiscriminate. When you use them the A ones release radiation to go God knows where". The latter part of that statement represents a very widely held misconception, and here is the proof.

Consider the only two cities against which an A-weapon has been used in anger, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both are now flourishing and successful, with no lingering after-effects from radiation.

On the other hand, consider the after-effects of the Chernobyl disaster. We are told that it will be 20,000 years before the land immediately downwind of the power station is again safe for human habitation.

The real danger, I suggest, lies with the large numbers of nuclear-powered warships operated by most major navies. The engines which propel them work the same way as those which drove the generators at Chernobyl.

Imagine - this is a highly-plausible scenario - that one of these ships is involved in a significant conventional exchange, which results in the reactor housing being split open. It will be Chernobyl all over again.

To really bring the point home, consider 24 May 1941, the day that the 47,000 ton HMS Hood, pride of the Royal Navy, was sunk by a single shell from the German battleship Bismarck. It penetrated her magazine, triggering a secondary explosion.

She wasn't so much sunk as obliterated - there were only four survivors from her ship's company of 1418 men.

Now consider that any warship of 47,000 tons built any time in the last 20 years - maybe more - would almost certainly have nuclear engines. If such a ship suffered the fate of Hood, the consequences would make Chernobyl seem like small beer.

And those consequences would be every bit as random as the collateral damage caused by bacteriological or chemical weapons.

Putting a disclaimer or a clear indication , not to read into the article things that are not clearly stated in it , seems a reasonable thing to do .
Being misconstrued , quoted out of context , is annoying .

The polar opposite of precision guided weapons , no CW weapons are not , they are fired to achieve the same end , the death , wounding of your enemy , the tying up of his resources , dealing with wounded people .
It seems to make no difference , if you are knifed , clubbed , shot , strangled , hit by friendly fire , mined , IED or are killed , maimed as collateral damage (often caused by PGM as well as UGM) , starved and/or dehydrated to death , many innocent people end up dead .
It is all horrible , the only answer is not to do it at all , with any weapon , or bring it to a swift conclusion by overwhelming use of personnel or weapons .
A WW2 sized Army of at least half a million men and associated kit , plus the logistical requirements to train replacements , would be required to end the fighting in Syria .It would need occupying to the Turkish Border and Iraq , It is not going to happen , so perhaps we should let them get on with it , amongst themselves .

While we discuss unlawful killings far away in Syria, what about the Alfie Evans case?

The parents assumed full legal and financial responsibility, the Bambino Gesu hospital offered free treatment, the Italian govt offered Alfie Italian citizenship to clear hurdles, and I understand the Italian air force provided a plane with life support to transfer him ...

Bob
Mr Hitchens gets an endless number of people misreading and sometimes twisting what he is saying. As far as I can tell it really really annoys him whether it's being done by his readers or fellow journalists. For example he regularly prints follow up articles correcting misconceptions about his views and pursues printed retractions with considerable vigour. Hence, the big red letters warning readers not misinterpret what he has written

***PH notes. This particular warning was directed at one particular reader, who got rather badly mixed up in public a couple of weeks ago. ***

I suspect that the gas attack claims are just a way of focusing on the most favourable anecdotal evidence to continue the odd airstrike for appearances sake . To me it looks more and more like an unwillingness to admit to military failure than anything else. Blair, Bush and then their replacements did a very wicked and very damaging thing. It's become easier to keep up relatively cheap low level token military interference than to say to the public that our politicians took us into a series of utterly pointless wars that they ultimately lost.

What I still don't get in this particular conflict is why the condemnation of chemical weapons as some sort of invention of Satan? If napalm had been used would that have been OK? For those who do not know, napalm is a mixture of petrol (or similar) and a gelling agent. The gelling agent is there to make sure the burning petrol sticks to whatever it hits. Like human skin. How is this dreadful weapon less worthy of condemnation than, say, nerve gas? Oh, that's right, the West uses it on the battlefield, so they can hardly condemn it. As for your final disclaimer, Mr Hitchens, whilst I respect your right to hold such a view, it is most definitely not one I share.

Mr. Hitchens
Why did you feel you had to explain, excuse, or qualify your words in red?
Is it for the "hard of thinking" - like Andrew Neil et al? Or is it the fear of opprobrium hence prophylactic use of, for example, the "Shania Twain" defence?

Paul Taylor. Mr Hitchens at no point asserts that he does not believe in this possibility. He has clearly pointed out that procedure has not been precisely followed and that it would be foolhardy in the extreme to make judgement until this is so.

Paul Taylor.Iran recently announced it was ditching the US Dollar in foreign trade.
Iraq did this in 2000 and was invaded 30 months later.Libya also tried to disturb the US Dollar and paid the price.It would be no surprise if Iran were attacked by the criminals of NATO.I imagine this time the pretext would be Iranian nuclear ambitions.

if the west and KSA felt the need to go to war with Iran I would imagine Russia would side with Syria's good friend and not lets forget China in all this.China along with Pakistan would feel aggrieved if Iran was attacked.I then imagine India would then involve itself against Pakistan.You can see how a world war can start Peter.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.